About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Chiu 11, Us 6, San Francisco 4, Campos 3, Farrell 2, Mr. Mirkarimi 2, Isn & 1, San FranciscanñçÑ 1, Asu 1, Official Misconduct Asw 1, As Aebm City 1, Impugnity 1, Official 1, H6kk @ & C 1, Tk & Uniquely 1, Foundxa 1, City 1, Ueñ 1, Boyrh 1, Attachk 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    October 10, 2012
    6:30 - 7:00am PDT  

6:30am
in future years, equates a slippery slope movingsi x forward. the ethics commission found most of the mayor'sg finding for misdemeanor/á!zbeh! misdecharges for actions before he was sheriff is disturbing toyén while political ens,q+b4 expedience -- is very tempting that is precisely the danger of removing 4ao an elected official for official misconduct for actions taken before tj")h person are officially in office. it is a dangerous precedent to set and aqx 4u slippery slope to be opening up this process as a political tool.k however, intolerable and unacceptable we find actions of our former colleague on the day é december 31 or subsequent actions following that our duty is to uphold&
6:31am
process, public faith in city government and safeguard06jo the integrity of democratic processes and not/cbuu)áu or contort the law that we think best serveswj!or everyone. i will not be voting today to sustain the/ >> president chiu: supervisor:k wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you, ú?7t% %9q. >> president chiu: order please. : supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. this whole process i know has been incredibly%0b= hard for other than --c4í,÷ everyone involved especially being asked to judge a former colleague.4 and i am going to speculate that i don't think any of the 11 of us are goingwxas' to walk out of this
6:32am
room tonight feeling great, no matter what happens, no matter how weóçuon vote. this case has been incredibly messy on many, many levels. andp6f-7ñ will say that you know, in the community, thereáare people whom i know, and who i respect, who feel very, very strongl$)i on both sides of this issue. and i think that reflects how difficulty this is. tonight, i will be voting to sustain the charges of misconduct in agreement with recommendation of the ethics commission. correct and that the commission was correct in concluding what happened on december 31 did relate to the duties of the sheriff'sdñ an act of domestic violence does relatel@ those duties. nothing in this charter-[ln utj that the oath of office have been taken already. the sheriff was the 4'[i%
6:33am
had the highest obligation to act"w6[m accordingly. he was about to become, and had been elected to be3[ ñ and certified to be the next chief elected law enforcement officer inf4u san francisco. there is a direct relation. and in terms of the standard of decency good+v 0 faith and right action, domestic violence ismqbç incredibly significant. domestic violencegaéañ advocates are not a special interest, as i think several people said tonight. i found that to be b% very, very offensive comment. even though theáì9 sheriff did plead guilty, and did state that he was taking responsibility, a1 he should be commended for that, we also, over the course of the last number of#z85p months, heard -- i think it was loudly in a lot ofboy= ways, taking responsibility than downplaying it. we heard it tonight. a
6:34am
was correct to criticize these comments.u' we heard tonight again that while maybe this wasn't really domestic violence,ó?y3s maybe this really wasn't a big issue at all it is a big issue, it isjr-]z a big deal. and i think it's important for this board to actuallyc÷ say that domestic violence is unacceptable and that we have a=z zero tolerance, but to actually act in that way, and that is why i will be!ds voting to uphold the recommendation. youxhá% know, i want to talk about redemption.[[g+ absolutely, i, and probably everyone in this room believes inpgyqa redemption and rehabilitation and restorative justiceickk but rededges doesn't mean you don'tgmi experience loss as a consequence of what you did. and i know that the sheriff will#fz i'm sure he will be
6:35am
rehabilitated, he will have redemption, and i hope he has awmjoç wonderful life with his family but that doesn't mean that he should remain as abwn"x chief elected law enforcement officer of the city and county of san francisco. you cans doesn't mean you are entitled to continue tosjéc hold that position. i alsonrnzcç want to make reference to the -- iv think really repeated and unfortunate attacks on the c2-ñ mayor. and i just want to preface this, and there were frankly)kuúñ petty pot shots, not just at the mayor but at our former mayor, our firep iyñ chief, and i found them to be really over the top and(-c)p inappropriate. and i say this as someone who -- i=n'ñ did not support mayor lee in the last election. i supported a different candidate. j&"1 have had several
6:36am
recent significant disagreements with the mayorus[. but tonight, we're doing this on the merits. this is not about whether you ef?- the mayor or whether you hate the mayor. it's about the merits of the matter beforez%n us. and that is why i'm voting the way i am. i knowr that's why my colleagues are voting the way they're voting. we are exercisingbejá our independent judgment and that is what we are all doing today. with that i move itemm$+ñ 2 and move to table item 3. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener's made theb% described. is there a second to that motion? secondedb > supervisor cohen: thank you. good evening, everyonexp[z. i believe that, from the moment weñ7óír are elected the moment we step out there to serve, the momentss6ñ we assume any kind of
6:37am
leadership role, whether voted in, assumed,f$1= assumed we havef l a duty, or we begin to assume and prepare for the the responsibilities andon requirements of being an elected official and in being a leader.írmlñ and that is -- and that this duty extends through the':v time that we are sworn in and hold that office. in reviewing the charterw=náá sections related to official misconduct i closely evaluated whether or not i the official misconduct related to
6:38am
overseeing those accused and convicted of crimes ofm#2 not only domestic violence and the plams to rehabilitate, and/zzd programs related to victim services, but asúád a legislative body and as a resident -- as residents of auáan francisco we have -- we have -- we must continue to have a high level of confidence and trust in our law enforcement officials. they must lead their department byú highest standard of;)dp conduct. now, i do disagree with the sheriff and many others that the right of the mayor to&oj elected or -- an elected for official misconduct isñiçu an unconstrained and overly broad right, or that somehow that we support theud7 ethics -- or that somehow if we support the ethics commission finding that we're opening1<:t! door for misuse of this provision in the charter. the voters of the city:g3y+0ñ gave
6:39am
the mayor this authority. additionally, it is not something that can be done unilaterally without due process, as we've it requires extensive consideration by our city's ethics commission as well as members of the board of supervisors. i believe that the record before us todaylm; the ethics commission has conducted a thoroughç:(ñ process, depriving no one of their due process or their rights. i alsoxgm believe that the reading of the charter is narrow and appropriately applied in this particular :. specifically i believe that the actions of sheriff mirkarimi on
6:40am
all public officials as specified in our city's charter. and after hours of reviewing the record before the board of supervis3 the testimony today i believe that we should uphold commission's recommendation. i also would like the many hours that people havefnó?ñ dedicated to helping our city grapple with this issue. mr. hur, thank you very much for your l commission on the status of women thank you. to the constituents of district 10 that showed up, bñ to the constituents of all of san francisco that took time to come out and be with us and share with us%uv for hours your testimony, thank you for being hereá.=é and from the bottom of my heart, i wish the mirkarimi-lopez family a continued success and blessing as they continue]p#2j to
6:41am
heal collectively together. it iswziz very difficult decision to come and stand before you, and explain how we're going to -- how i'mwn&4 going to vote. this is a very important issue. many with my colleagues about the comments that we heard today. i foundxa,w them to be -- some to be ñ6émi a shocked because it's coming from a community r advocating peace,
6:42am
fairness restorative justice democracy yet at timesf3wv i feel like particularly when listening to public comment that these principles were/ñ-l not extended to every single san franciscanñçñ. in?zji closing i will say that i think -- i believe that the sheriff musto? capable of maintaining emotional control and?hyvvq)cise good judgment under all and extreme difficult challenging circumstances. that's it. >> thank you. añ president chiu. >> president chiu: thank you. i wanted to state in thisj ninth hour deliberations i want to thank the public for all of thewíes perspectives and values and
6:43am
stories and truth that you've i want to thank the competent counsel on both sides of this issue. i absolutely want to thankh-w the ethics commission and its chair for your leadership and for your months of work. as has been stated as is probably quite obvious this may be one of the most difficult decisions that i think those of us e-ñ serve on this body will have to make not just because of the rare historic nature of what we9 because it involves a former colleague who as we all know, and we all agree, has served his constituents with such distinction and dedication. and my&dñ you and your family for what you've goneg. year. we've heard a suggestion tonight that we are considering a matter that somehow mayë7ñ be against the will of voters. unfortunately years ago, the voters ofubm san francisco included in our city constitution a process for the removal of public officials based on
6:44am
official misconduct the process that we must engage in tonight. these are the difficul46o+2a decisions that we were all elected to make. the ethics commission found in unanimous findings that our]ó2w sheriff committed acts of verbal and physical abuse against his wife restrained his wife and vield her personal liberty pled guilty to the charge of false imprisonment and was civiliansed to three years of probation in our jurisdiction required to go through a year of domestic counseling and pay a fine for domestic violence. the question in front of us as we know is whether thesíz áeá conduct on december 31 of last year constituted officialtuu)w misconduct. and having reviewed the entire record, it's very difficult for me to come torv+v any other conclusion except to sustain the charges. i have three points i want to make in this regard. first of all they. official duties
6:45am
of sheriff includes not just the direct oversight of programs in thexs- those who have broken the law. this criminal" completely related to the official duties of the sheriff. and it isib how deputy sheriffs, who are not bpj4(p&c"p% allowed to commit crimes while they're off duty to keep their jobs are askedi?z1e to abide by one standard and not require the sheriff, their boss, to abide by that same standard. secondly as i think through the3]ez arguments of the sheriff's lawyers, they have been very good arguments it's hard for me to agree with the suggestion that somehow this is a personal act of misconduct but not official misconduct, that we are only responsible for what happens from 9:00 to 5:00 when we sit in our public office. as public officials, and<:q0z when we ran to be public officials, i think we knew that we are held to a different standard given our position.pí'0$@&c"p% it's also hard for me to agree
6:46am
that a public official somehow@/:uñ immune with this conduct, just because it happened after election day but befc1a swearing in. the suggestion that there should be no consequences in that two month period doesn't make(! to me, that any of us could commit crimes on the way to a swe)juñ8x in with impugnity. the last point i want to make is-d of -- and i want to echo every one of use0lx have stated this so far we cannot trivlize the crime committed. we have had suggestions that this was not a serious crime. as a former prosecutor i am familiar with the challenges of enforcing our domestic violence laws and we know the history of what happens, when we don't take these laws"z[z seriously. we've heard many stories tonight, very personal stories, ofifñ frustrations, of other examples of alleged domestic violence that haveá/zt not been
6:47am
fully investigated and prosecuted. i don't think the answers to them though is to say in this case we shouldn't take those allegations seriously. i think the answer is to take every allegation ofváj[ domestic violence as seriously as we have considered this situation, as aebm city for the past nine months. as a mother who testifiedñ1rgqujáju about what her children will learn from this tonight's[ 'k"ecision is going to communicate a message to our city and beyond about how we as san franciscans viewe4x÷ domestic violence about what we should expect in law enforcement leadership. given that itqvm7 appears that there are three votes to not uphold the charges i think it is incumbent and i7:)hv will echo supervisor campos that we will need to come together as a city on this. we're going to have to work together to let our city and the entire world know that we do not stand for this type of activity, we do not stand for domestic
6:48am
violence. >>ke7ñ thank you, president chiu. supervisor farrell. >> supervisor farrell: thank you, supervisor campos. well, colleagues, andyz,i members of the public, i think it is a sad situation that we are here tonight. you know, what has happened over the last nine months has obviously brgy;8)t lot of unwanted spotlight not only on our city and the sheriff's department, i've found it personally wrenching that4 h7knm obviously pit family members against each other and, you know, with the young boyrh involved as well. and i agree with what supervisor campos said earlier and ii"ñh think everyone has echoed no one takes pleasure in being here tonight. this is not fun ata?b>÷ all. in terms of the issue at hand for me, obviously the crime is a fact. it's whether or not it's official misconduct. i want to talk about a few issuesú m=ñ i struggled with. with the dialogue with the city@j'ñ
6:49am
attorney's office earlier you know, i did reject that notion i did have serious issues with the notion of mr. mirkarimi not being sworn in but being the sheriff-elect. but at thhí )hju$e day as president chiu did mention earlier i do think there are duties that attachk"t prior to being sworn in. it does seem absurd there weredo"0k some comments you know, you take it to extremes, what happens about, you know, =4ñ robbing folks on the way to your inauguration. that does not make sense to and perhaps you know, this won't nowñ 9 be adjudicated in the courts after what seems to be three votes at aq.$ sustain the charges. but as i've thought about-]9s it, those duties do attach when someone has that expectation that they're going to be sworn
6:50am
into office. i'm okay with that issue but i do caution of taking this to extremes. and i amd precedent-setting natureúonst of what we're talking about today. and i do thinking even going beyond what maybe the final vote here, i think we're going to caution and everyone would agree, that of power underneath this charter provision would be frowned upon. in terms of official misconduct i view it in two ways in reading the charter, either specifically related to duties as anztv elected official, and in this instance i think there are specific duties that do attach to the sheriff's office as a number of other offices in san francisco or else in an act so egregious no elect official shall remain in officevf; here i think the central debate
6:51am
isn
6:52am
declaring how serious of an issue domestic violence is and that even those people -- and i hope no one takes a chance to pot shot at people after<$b÷ this, if they vote not to sustain the charges that everyone views domestic violence in this issue as a super-serious issue. don't let anyone say anything else about this bodies. the fact is mr. mirkarimi com9b!t a criminal act of domestic violence, pled to it while the electedz=-oñ chief law enforcement officer, and to me it's a situation that's untenable. elected officials are(4 held to higher standards but like it or not public safety officials are held to even higher?hzn t(áqj in many instances. to me the totality of the circumstances i don't be3pxç doesn't allow mr. mirkarimi to effectively discharge the duties of sheriff going forward. now much has been said about this process thwarting democracy. i will agree with my colleagues mentioned this was put in place by the voters a number of years
6:53am
ago. but i am empathetic to most of ÷o se arguments. you vote someone in. you can vote them out. and i worry a great deal about!5w@m potential for abuse in this charter section. i reject the notion that this is speedy tool to adjudicate. i don't think that's a proper way to look at this. i would almost always argue that a recall is a more appropriate action in these circumstances, unless a continuation of dutiesyv$ during recall is problematic and presents a hazard. given the duties and theev aq4j4(p&c"p% that the sheriff's status on probation attempting to govern the sheriff's department i believe wasoù a course of action and i will vote to sustain the charges of the ethics commission. let me say one comment about restorative justice that has been mentioned before. i doi i take great pride in our city's efforts in restorative÷nn9e t and especially sheriff hennessy's work here in the
6:54am
years preceding this past>&w?m election. and i'm extremely saddened what this has doneñ. and i wish mr. mirkarimi, ms. lopezrwfo and your son nothing but the best wishes as you=j continue to seek to reconcile and find solace and the time and the gift to reconnect. and as president chiu)bjxhñ mentioned, we do have to come together as a city, no matter what the ultimate tally isç4ol here. we have to come together as a city and move forward. and you have my commitment to dom:÷ that. >> president chiu: supervisorg elsbernd. >> supervisor elsbernd: thank you, mr. president. and thank you to the -- i said something to commissioner hur beforehand at! say that the ethics commission reviewing the deliberations and all that you did you truly elevated yourselves as a;h6kk@&c"p% commission and proved yourself
6:55am
worthy of the title of úñ commissioner and i thank you for the work you did as a commission and asu i second the motion by supervisor clearly indicating my intend to vote to sustain the charges 37 i'm not going to get into the oa÷.& issues. i like to associate myselfj:5 president chiu's comments but the point i want to raise i think that needs to be and put on the record with the vote already clear but still needs to be stated. the issue thatl8u discussion with the sheriff's counsel about theq%-y sheriff's duties, sheriff takes understandably in this instance,u]3 a very narrow scope of what his duties areli h what his official duties are. i could not disagree with that b/(q i think to imply that the sheriff's duties are solely to
6:56am
maintainó?ar the jails, absolutely ignores all the responsibilities that come with enforcement official. what's more, it4?ed absolutely ignores the the responsibilities that come with being the chief law5o enforcement official, and one more piece, the elected[y÷ chief law enforcement official.tk& uniquely to the role of sheriff, elected sheriff, i think truly come require an individual to impeccably in front of the electorate, impeccably in;bj+ of the public. that person has volunteered, stood forward to say i want to there unquestionably as someone above theéexó, law. and i believe that the sheriff violated that trust. his official duties.
6:57am
and i believe the$>ñ4s sheriff is guilty of official misconduct >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisoríyw want to repeat the points that manyrv) of my colleagues have been making tonight. but i did just want to say that""y )z was personally upset to see some members of our public criticize and> berate some of our domestic violence advocates that came out+eoañ today. i think that that was unfortunate and it was incredibly inappropriate. i think!íuyu that people are entitled to their opinions and just as your opinion is respected in this room ióc!<÷ think you should respect those of others. i think domestic violence is anhm0 incredibly sensitive issue. because of that we have to have a higher level ofiykó morality and ethics whether we have a discussion about what constitutes domestichhx+t violence. but i'm going to speak just to the issue that is before us
6:58am
i think that the board of supervisors is being asked to do four┐q things. one is to address the timing issue. when, atgta commitojaqs official misconduct. the second question is how do we define that&a+by official misconduct. and the third is whether the charges fit that definition,ueñ;y and finally, whether the mayor's office counsel proved bywrú preponderance of evidence that those charges happened. somoyv i'll speak quickly on the timing issue and i think most of us are in agreement here. 2 found to perform official misconduct asw.t0ñ sheriff-elect. and i come to this conclusion because even under the most narrow definition of what rmy=ñjjr( to office means, i believe that you can commit official misconductgç#w÷ because you can purport to be on the job or purport to use the power of your
6:59am
officex';[ under the color of the law. i think about the last time this came before us -- notpwon÷ before the board of supervisors but the last time it occurred in the city andi@4y that was with ajew. if supervisor+>çda elect had told the store he would help them through a planning processbú$g if they took a bribe before he swore an oath of office i(r think he committed official misuse of conduct because he is using his office under the color of the law so tai he can do one thing or a; i think the timing issue has been well settled here. on the definition ofy[ri official misconduct, and hees where i agree with chairman huh i think wej1jj need to take the most narrow definition of official misconduct asxn1 defined by maz ol-a and black's law disiksary and that the conduct clause whether it falls below the standard of